First Cause Argument

Fri, 2009-06-19 22:38 — Prichard Hotpocket

Question::

Among the arguments for a god, the first cause argument stands out as one that seems to be more credible than any other arguments like the evolution denying argument for design. AKA "The eye was designed so people could see"...... Personally I would refute this by several routes. The first one would be that everything doesn't necessarily have a cause, like radioactive decay. Perhaps the acausal quantum fluctuations we see now had more of an effect in a singularity. The other argument I could propose would be that the universe is cyclic (big crunch, etc) but this doesn't seem to be the case. Perhaps another similar idea would be that we are merely the offspring of a parent universe with wildly different variables that allows for a spontaneous increase in the amount of total energy/matter. Anyways, how do you deal with the first cause argument?

Atheist Answer:

Much the same way you do: by bringing up the other possibilities to beat the argument from ignorance. I go into a lot more detail in this earlier answer, and I've tackled it briefly in lots of others.